Delhi High Court
Ramjilal Mina vs The Municipal Corpporation Of ... on 19 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 IIAD Delhi 830, 79 (1999) DLT 151
Author: K Ramamoorthy
Bench: K Ramamoorthy
ORDER
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner was working as Vaidya in the Government Ayurvedic Department, Rajasthan. Pursuant to the advertisement made by the MCD for the post of Vaidya, the petitioner applied for the post of Vaidya, and he was appointed as Vaidya on the 14th of December, 1984. It is common ground that he completed his probation successfully. The next promotion post for the category of Vaidya in MCD is Resident Superintendent (ISM). Under the recruitment regulations, framed in 1987, for the said post, the mode of promotion is by selection and the qualification prescribed for a person to
be considered for promotion for the post of the Resident Superintendent (ISM) is 8 years' regular service in the grade of Vaidya. Therefore, a person holding the post of Vaidya could be considered for promotion for the post of Resident Superintendent (ISM) and he must have put in eight years' regular service in the grade as Vaidya.
2. The case of the petitioner is that adding the service rendered by him in Rajasthan Government as Vaidya, on the relevant date when the vacancy arose in 1988, he had completed much more than eight years of service in the grade of Vaidya and he being a ST candidate, his case should have been considered by the MCD for promotion for the post of Resident Superintendent (ISM). The petitioner has also referred to the fact the MCD had given relaxation to certain other candidates, in particular, one Shri Dhan Singh Nigam. The main argument of Mr. Jagjit Singh, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, is that once the petitioner satisfies the requirements provided in the regulations, having put in eight years' service, his case must have been considered by the MCD for promotion.
3. The respondent in the counter had referred to the fact that the MCD had passed a resolution in May, 1987 to the effect that past service of a person, who had come from outside, cannot be reckoned for the purpose of promotion and the past service could be taken into account only for pensionary benefits.
4. The learned counsel for the MCD submitted that for direct recruitment to the post of Resident Superintendent (ISM), seven years professional experience is required and for the purpose of promotion, the petitioner must have worked in the MCD for a period of eight years in the grade of Vaidya. Therefore, the MCD had acted in accordance with regulations in not considering the case of the petitioner as he did not satisfy the requirements provided in the regulations.
5. In the resolution passed by the MCD in May, 1987, no provision has been made with reference to the SC/ST candidates. The MCD, in its counter, had completely ignored the fact that the petitioner being a ST candidate
and his Fundamental Rights in the Constitution, ought have been considered for promotion by the MCD. The position of the SC/ST candidates under ourConstitution is well settled, and in particular, under Article 47, the
public authorities are duty bound to give preference to them.
6. In the light of these facts, the respondent, MCD, ought to have considered the case of the petitioner when the vacancy arose in 1988. It is not stated in the counter that there are no vacancies now available. The respondent MCD has also not considered the 40-Point Roaster. The petitioner's right to be considered for promotion when he had put in more than eight years' service, including the service rendered by him in Rajasthan Government, is justified. The MCD ought to have given him promotion. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
7. The MCD is directed to pass appropriate orders considering the case of the petitioner for promotion for the year 1988 when the vacancy had arisen on or before the 30th of June, 1999. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
